He has a point Dan, while we've both been vocal about our hatred for the movie, I started the whole LTK war between you, me and Klaus, also I think taity meant since I'm younger he believes that when I'm older I'll appreciate it more.
Thank you for your concern taity, I truly appreciate it but the answer is: I will never let that happen as long as my name is JennyFlexFan!
He has a point Dan, while we've both been vocal about our hatred for the movie, I started the whole LTK war between you, me and Klaus, also I think taity meant since I'm younger he believes that when I'm older I'll appreciate it more.
Fair enough. (On a mostly related point I find it interesting that my dislike of LTK has actually grown since I met you. )
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
As for DAD - I'll maintain that it did have a good first half, with realistic locations (Cuba looked very real) and I think it had a Fleming style to it. Additionally, the movies full of strong supporting characters who also dont outlive their welcome - Mr Chang has a very nice little role only to disappear from the script within 10 mins. Roaul also creates a lasting impression yet doesnt outlive his welcome. Also the return to London I thought was very good. First with Bond casually reading about the villian in a gossip like magazine. Then the way that Bonds watching Graves after his arrivial at Buck Palace - I thought that was a very good idea and very well done by the director.
Fair enough. I don't really agree as I hated the first half (especially Bond's being captured and tortured and his failure to even escape) but I have discovered that my dislike of the first half makes me a minority on this site.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Isn't the topic title a little biased when it pretty much just asks you to pick either one of them.
I don't think either of those films are the worst of the lot really - pesronally I've always had hard time watching Diamonds but that's just me.
Well, and uh... If only I were in charge here I'd neutralize the title slightly.
yea diamonds are forever is pretty ****. I dont think either are the worst, i have to say that they are entertaining and just another entry to the series, TND and DAF are the worst
yea diamonds are forever is pretty ****. I dont think either are the worst, i have to say that they are entertaining and just another entry to the series, TND and DAF are the worst
Why do you dislike DAF so much?
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Connery sucks in this, even though he looks more interested lol,
I'm sorry, but this is where I draw a line. Insult DAF, insult the girls, but LEAVE CONNERY ALONE! X-(
In my view, Connery was superb in DAF and produced the sixth greatest Bond performance of all time. I'm aware that this is a minority opinion, but, well, I don't care. I think that Connery was an absolute joy to watch in DAF and in it he arguably provided one of the truly great Bond performances.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Plotholes, my dear. The biggest plotholes were Goldfinger's reluctance to kill Bond in Switzerland and the murder of the Mafia bosses.
They weren't plotholes. Goldfinger didn't kill Bond because there was a possibility that Bond might know something. Additionally, Goldfinger's ego was so large that he thought he could just keep Bond in captivity. As for the killing of the crime bosses, again ego. I assume you're referring to Goldfinger's unveiling of the plan. Well he told them of his plans due to his vanity. He has a huge ego and if you watch the scene with Bond in which they discuss his plan, you can see that Goldfinger loved the fact that Bond admired his plan. Yes, Goldfinger could have just killed them, but IMO it would have been out of character to do so as Goldfinger wouldn't pass up the opportunity to show off his superior knowledge and skills.
Much of what Goldfinger does comes down to ego and vanity. Anyway, I honestly don't think the film has any plotholes. Certainly the examples that you mentioned aren't plotholes.
Also, I did not like Bond in this movie. He came off as some immature schoolboy with an uncontrollable libido and an enlarged ego. It wasn't Connery's fault. He had to work best with what the writers gave him.
Interesting. I didn't get that in the slightest.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Plotholes, my dear. The biggest plotholes were Goldfinger's reluctance to kill Bond in Switzerland and the murder of the Mafia bosses.
They weren't plotholes. Goldfinger didn't kill Bond because there was a possibility that Bond might know something. Additionally, Goldfinger's ego was so large that he thought he could just keep Bond in captivity. As for the killing of the crime bosses, again ego. I assume you're referring to Goldfinger's unveiling of the plan. Well he told them of his plans due to his vanity. He has a huge ego and if you watch the scene with Bond in which they discuss his plan, you can see that Goldfinger loved the fact that Bond admired his plan. Yes, Goldfinger could have just killed them, but IMO it would have been out of character to do so as Goldfinger wouldn't pass up the opportunity to show off his superior knowledge and skills.
Much of what Goldfinger does comes down to ego and vanity. Anyway, I honestly don't think the film has any plotholes. Certainly the examples that you mentioned aren't plotholes.
Also, I did not like Bond in this movie. He came off as some immature schoolboy with an uncontrollable libido and an enlarged ego. It wasn't Connery's fault. He had to work best with what the writers gave him.
Interesting. I didn't get that in the slightest.
I didn't either Dan, to tell the truth he was more like that in NSNA (which is why I didn't really like him in that movie, making me almost side with SPECTRE! )
I didn't either Dan, to tell the truth he was more like that in NSNA (which is why I didn't really like him in that movie, making me almost side with SPECTRE! )
Yet you prefer NSNA to TB. Tell me, what do you think of Connery in TB?
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
In my view, Connery was superb in DAF and produced the sixth greatest Bond performance of all time.
He must feel proud, after all he did do 7. Why not call it his second crappest Bond gig?
Where does DAF go wrong? Well...
1) Connery is too old and in too bad a physical condition to be Bond. He's now overweight, clearly balding and he looks less like he could take you in a fight than what Moore could in his final appearence. Addtionally, LALD Moore was 5 years older than Connery in this outing and he looked considerably better.
2) The plot - all over the shop, weakly identifies the villian and Bond at no point seems as if hes upset to see Blofeld. Additionally, no one knows what the big deal about diamonds are - the British government seemed so worried about them in the first few scenes only to have them seem secondary to the story. They should have stuck to the source novel.
3) The girl. Here we have a pathetic attempt at a strong character. She acts as a diamond smuggler, first scene shes in she gives the diamonds to the wrong courier. Now thats skill. Too much time is spent giving her different wigs to model. And shes never seen Blofeld, but she recognises him in drag.
4) Wint and Kidd - them I actually liked, and they were a big improvement from the novel.
5) The MANY plot holes - How does the diamond laser work? Why did Dr. Metz agree to work for Blofeld? If science was never Blofeld's strong suit, why did he pose as one in OHMSS. How did Saxby know to turn up at the house on the ridge? Tiffany has never seen BLofeld, yet she recognises him...when in drag. Why is Blofeld in drag if no one knows for certain what he looks like? When Blofeld is alerted to Bond in the casino, why not have him killed? After all, hes foiled Blofeld's schemes how many times before - hes in Vegas why, to pick up hookers like Plenty? Why did Plenty turn up at Tiffany's house dead? What was Plenty doing in the movie to begin with, she didnt advance the story along in any way - did the writers feel it was easier to put her in rather than a plot? If the coffin went in and was flamed as drastically as it was, how come Bond's alright? After all, when its pulled out you can see that the legs' end of the coffin has been heavily burnt. Bond claims the money paid to him for getting the money into the States is fake - why would the organisation go to all the trouble to print fake money to give it to him - couldnt they have given him real money and then take it back before burning him?
6) The over use of humour in this movie. Bad gay jokes, pathetic jokes about vagina hair, cars that go into narrow alleys on two wheels to magically turn over. The fake moon landing!
I'm with you on this one, taity. But I can answer for one of DAF's many plotholes. Plenty winds up dead in Tiffany's place because she was looking for Tiffany. Bond mentions this but it doesn't make any sense at the time. A deleted scene shows a sopping Plenty returning to Bond's hotel room after she was thrown into the pool. It was at this point, she finds out Tiffany's identity and address by looking through her purse. Her motive? I'm not sure. Jealousy, perhaps. Or perhaps she heard some important snippets about the diamond smuggling and was hoping to find some loot. Or maybe blackmail.
Regardless, this is plugging only one whole in a dam that's leaking like a sieve. DAF is simply, IMO, a poor excuse for a Bond flick. I don't even think Connery tried[/] to save this one.
I didn't either Dan, to tell the truth he was more like that in NSNA (which is why I didn't really like him in that movie, making me almost side with SPECTRE! )
Yet you prefer NSNA to TB. Tell me, what do you think of Connery in TB?
He looked tired during the whole movie, I don't think it was a very good Bond performance at all. I think he did a better job in NSNA (but in TB it was a lose-lose for me, as I couldn't root for him OR for the lackluster Largo and Fiona).
He must feel proud, after all he did do 7. Why not call it his second crappest Bond gig?
Because I don't think it was crappy. I consider it to be the sixth best of the twenty-one different Bond performances. The only performances which I consider to be superior are Connery's first four perfromances and Brosnan's in TWINE. I won't describe DAF as a crappy performance precisely because I consider it to be a brilliant performance.
1) Connery is too old and in too bad a physical condition to be Bond. He's now overweight, clearly balding and he looks less like he could take you in a fight than what Moore could in his final appearence. Addtionally, LALD Moore was 5 years older than Connery in this outing and he looked considerably better.
I'm sorry but he didn't look that bad. Yes, he wasn't in great shape, but after watching DAF recently, I truly don't think he was in such horrible shape.
I may be a minority here, but I loved DAF. It was quite silly, it had alot of plotholes, but I thought Connery was brilliant, I loved Wint and Kidd, I thought there were several brilliant scenes (the fight in the elevator, the crematorium scene, Bambi and Thumper, the last scene) and I just thought it was alot of fun. It's eleventh on my list, partly because I think it has some great things going for it (Connery, Wint and Kidd, the fight in the elevator, the crematorium scene, Bambi and Thumper, the final scene) but mostly because I always have a great time watching it.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
yes it is enjoyable, but if i actully saw it in the cinema i would be highly dissapointed, and in comparison with others its poor.
The movie feels, though, like after OHMSS they had to justify themselves with humour and a non-serious storyline, i can see how Connery may have a good performance, but hes not performing for much.
I loved his phony voice to the real Peter Franks though )
i can see how Connery may have a good performance, but hes not performing for much.
Well, I don't know. I thought that Connery brilliantly exuded suaveness, charm, ruthlessness and complete confidence. Apart from his less than ideal physical condition, I thought it was a terrific performance.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Not sure how well this will go down, but I think Connery only gave 3 great performances as Bond - DN, FRWL and GF. By the time he was doing TB he looked a little too relaxed. (JFF, back me up on this.) This stuck with him in YOLT, DAF ive talked about. Then NSNA, ill agree with what JFF said about it. Whereas the Roger on the other hand, he gave 7 solid performances despite having a script like Moonraker in the mix.
Not sure how well this will go down, but I think Connery only gave 3 great performances as Bond - DN, FRWL and GF. By the time he was doing TB he looked a little too relaxed. (JFF, back me up on this.) This stuck with him in YOLT, DAF ive talked about. Then NSNA, ill agree with what JFF said about it. Whereas the Roger on the other hand, he gave 7 solid performances despite having a script like Moonraker in the mix.
Thats true, i find that his best performances were in FRWL and then the best GF, he went downhill from there, you can really tell hes bitter about the role, and yes Roger Moore gave it all he had in all 7 of his and you can tell hes proud and pleased to be 007.
Can we change the title of this thread to 'Essentric Bond Opinions'?
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Not sure how well this will go down, but I think Connery only gave 3 great performances as Bond - DN, FRWL and GF. By the time he was doing TB he looked a little too relaxed. (JFF, back me up on this.) This stuck with him in YOLT, DAF ive talked about. Then NSNA, ill agree with what JFF said about it. Whereas the Roger on the other hand, he gave 7 solid performances despite having a script like Moonraker in the mix.
Thats true, i find that his best performances were in FRWL and then the best GF, he went downhill from there, you can really tell hes bitter about the role, and yes Roger Moore gave it all he had in all 7 of his and you can tell hes proud and pleased to be 007.
For me, Sean Connery was outstanding in the first three films, especially in FRWL. His performance dipped slightly in TB, but he was still very good. In YOLT he looked bored and didn't perform. I know there were extraneous reasons for his non-performance, but I can't forgive him for it. In DAF he was overweight but performed decently, adjusting his portrayal to suit the lighter tone of the film. In NSNA he was just a pale shadow compared to TB though he did look in pretty good physical shape.
Without doubt, Connery's performance's tended to get weaker as he wen't along. On the other hand, Roger Moore's performances tended to get stronger as he wen't along, and for that he deserves much credit. For me, Moore was very good in LALD & TMWTGG, he was outstanding in TSWLM, was good in MR, was outstanding in FYEO (his best performance), outstanding in OP, and was good in AVTAK.
Yes I believe thats true about Roger having his most powerful performances as he did more bonds, starting in TSWLM me right up to AVTAK with Octopussy, FYEO and AVTAK especailly.
Roger seems to be like Pierce and can switch between humour, action and seriousness. Sean just seems to bargin, flirt and chat with the villain. Roger and Peirce get quite angry like Roger at the Circus and to Orlov on the train, and Peirce to Elektra just before he kills her.
Without doubt, Connery's performance's tended to get weaker as he wen't along. On the other hand, Roger Moore's performances tended to get stronger as he wen't along, and for that he deserves much credit.
I don't really agree. This is how I see Connery and Moore:
Connery-I think he was brilliant (to varying degrees) in each of his films except for YOLT (in which I still think he was pretty good) and NSNA (no comment. ) I would rank his performances thus;
1)GF
2)TB
3)FRWL
4)DN
5)DAF
6)YOLT
7)NSNA
Roger Moore- I though he was brilliant in LALD/TSWLM/FYEO, very good in MR/OP, okay in TMWTGG and disappointing in AVTAK. I would rank his performances thus;
1)TSWLM
2)LALD
3)FYEO
4)MR/OP*
5)TMWTGG
6)AVTAK
*If I had to pick one over the other it would be MR, but I think that both performances are terrific and their quality is about the same.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Well, I must say, for me at any rate, 'Moonraker' is probably the weakest, and even then it's mainly the second half of the film- the first is fine. But I don't like the 'Bond in space' schtick or the frankly terrible scenes with Jaws and his girlfriend Dolly- that whole thing is, imo, the worst Bond moment ever.
'Man With The Golden Gun' runs it very close for me- there's actually very little to recommend here, imo. The plot is fairly standard, though Scaramanga is a great villain and despite the fight at the end(another worst Bond moment) with him, Nick Nack is an intriguing character too. Apart from that, it's a washout, pretty much.
'A View To A Kill' I have a curious affection for. It's still one of the weakest films in the series, but it has more good bits than those others I mentioned. Patrick Macnee's scenes are great fun (though his demise in a car wash took his Avengers credentials a bit too far- a death you'd expect in that series but not here), Walken and Grace Jones are a great villainous duo. The stunt jump from the Eiffel Tower is amazing, too, and I like the car chase's reckless abandon. That said, Stacey Sutton is the least memorable Bond girl of all time imo, the car chase through the street is nicked from 'Diamonds Are Forever' and isn't even as funny as that is, and the 'California Girls' nonsense all but ruins the pre-credits scene. Still though, I prefer it to the other two weakest films.
To be honest, even the weaker Connery films don't hit the nadir of some of the Moore ones or the last two Brosnan ones, which I found cold and overblown. Most of the Connery ones are wondrous to behold. Watched 'From Russia With Love' on Sunday and forgot just how good that was- definitely just behind OHMSS for me, that one.
That said, I find it very hard to watch 'Thunderball' for its full running time. The amount of underwater sequences in this really do make it tedious- a shame, because I find most of the film to be really rather good. And 'Diamonds Are Forever' is my guilty pleasure- it's not particularly good Bond, but I find it a real hoot. I think it's because it was the first Bond film I saw I really like it. Hard to say it's one of the best, though, really.
If you ever get a chance to see Thunderball on a proper theater screen, do it. The uderwater scenes that you mentioned are far from tedious when viewed in their proper dimensions. Instead of being just a viewer, you are immersed in the action. The same is true of OHMSS. The ski sequences deserve the widescreen treatment. Just some proof as to why movie theaters will never go away completlely. Home theater can still not totally match the true movie experience.
Comments
Thank you for your concern taity, I truly appreciate it but the answer is: I will never let that happen as long as my name is JennyFlexFan!
Fair enough. I don't really agree as I hated the first half (especially Bond's being captured and tortured and his failure to even escape) but I have discovered that my dislike of the first half makes me a minority on this site.
I don't think either of those films are the worst of the lot really - pesronally I've always had hard time watching Diamonds but that's just me.
Well, and uh... If only I were in charge here I'd neutralize the title slightly.
"Better make that two."
Connery sucks in this, even though he looks more interested lol, the girls are bad and the villian is in no way threatning.
"Better make that two."
In my view, Connery was superb in DAF and produced the sixth greatest Bond performance of all time. I'm aware that this is a minority opinion, but, well, I don't care.
Much of what Goldfinger does comes down to ego and vanity. Anyway, I honestly don't think the film has any plotholes. Certainly the examples that you mentioned aren't plotholes.
Interesting. I didn't get that in the slightest.
I didn't either Dan, to tell the truth he was more like that in NSNA (which is why I didn't really like him in that movie, making me almost side with SPECTRE!
He must feel proud, after all he did do 7. Why not call it his second crappest Bond gig?
Where does DAF go wrong? Well...
1) Connery is too old and in too bad a physical condition to be Bond. He's now overweight, clearly balding and he looks less like he could take you in a fight than what Moore could in his final appearence. Addtionally, LALD Moore was 5 years older than Connery in this outing and he looked considerably better.
2) The plot - all over the shop, weakly identifies the villian and Bond at no point seems as if hes upset to see Blofeld. Additionally, no one knows what the big deal about diamonds are - the British government seemed so worried about them in the first few scenes only to have them seem secondary to the story. They should have stuck to the source novel.
3) The girl. Here we have a pathetic attempt at a strong character. She acts as a diamond smuggler, first scene shes in she gives the diamonds to the wrong courier. Now thats skill. Too much time is spent giving her different wigs to model. And shes never seen Blofeld, but she recognises him in drag.
4) Wint and Kidd - them I actually liked, and they were a big improvement from the novel.
5) The MANY plot holes - How does the diamond laser work? Why did Dr. Metz agree to work for Blofeld? If science was never Blofeld's strong suit, why did he pose as one in OHMSS. How did Saxby know to turn up at the house on the ridge? Tiffany has never seen BLofeld, yet she recognises him...when in drag. Why is Blofeld in drag if no one knows for certain what he looks like? When Blofeld is alerted to Bond in the casino, why not have him killed? After all, hes foiled Blofeld's schemes how many times before - hes in Vegas why, to pick up hookers like Plenty? Why did Plenty turn up at Tiffany's house dead? What was Plenty doing in the movie to begin with, she didnt advance the story along in any way - did the writers feel it was easier to put her in rather than a plot? If the coffin went in and was flamed as drastically as it was, how come Bond's alright? After all, when its pulled out you can see that the legs' end of the coffin has been heavily burnt. Bond claims the money paid to him for getting the money into the States is fake - why would the organisation go to all the trouble to print fake money to give it to him - couldnt they have given him real money and then take it back before burning him?
6) The over use of humour in this movie. Bad gay jokes, pathetic jokes about vagina hair, cars that go into narrow alleys on two wheels to magically turn over. The fake moon landing!
Regardless, this is plugging only one whole in a dam that's leaking like a sieve. DAF is simply, IMO, a poor excuse for a Bond flick. I don't even think Connery tried[/] to save this one.
"Better make that two."
He looked tired during the whole movie, I don't think it was a very good Bond performance at all. I think he did a better job in NSNA (but in TB it was a lose-lose for me, as I couldn't root for him OR for the lackluster Largo and Fiona).
I'm sorry but he didn't look that bad. Yes, he wasn't in great shape, but after watching DAF recently, I truly don't think he was in such horrible shape.
I may be a minority here, but I loved DAF. It was quite silly, it had alot of plotholes, but I thought Connery was brilliant, I loved Wint and Kidd, I thought there were several brilliant scenes (the fight in the elevator, the crematorium scene, Bambi and Thumper, the last scene) and I just thought it was alot of fun. It's eleventh on my list, partly because I think it has some great things going for it (Connery, Wint and Kidd, the fight in the elevator, the crematorium scene, Bambi and Thumper, the final scene) but mostly because I always have a great time watching it.
The movie feels, though, like after OHMSS they had to justify themselves with humour and a non-serious storyline, i can see how Connery may have a good performance, but hes not performing for much.
I loved his phony voice to the real Peter Franks though
"Better make that two."
Thats true, i find that his best performances were in FRWL and then the best GF, he went downhill from there, you can really tell hes bitter about the role, and yes Roger Moore gave it all he had in all 7 of his and you can tell hes proud and pleased to be 007.
"Better make that two."
because of your opinion?
"Better make that two."
For me, Sean Connery was outstanding in the first three films, especially in FRWL. His performance dipped slightly in TB, but he was still very good. In YOLT he looked bored and didn't perform. I know there were extraneous reasons for his non-performance, but I can't forgive him for it. In DAF he was overweight but performed decently, adjusting his portrayal to suit the lighter tone of the film. In NSNA he was just a pale shadow compared to TB though he did look in pretty good physical shape.
Without doubt, Connery's performance's tended to get weaker as he wen't along. On the other hand, Roger Moore's performances tended to get stronger as he wen't along, and for that he deserves much credit. For me, Moore was very good in LALD & TMWTGG, he was outstanding in TSWLM, was good in MR, was outstanding in FYEO (his best performance), outstanding in OP, and was good in AVTAK.
Yes I believe thats true about Roger having his most powerful performances as he did more bonds, starting in TSWLM me right up to AVTAK with Octopussy, FYEO and AVTAK especailly.
Roger seems to be like Pierce and can switch between humour, action and seriousness. Sean just seems to bargin, flirt and chat with the villain. Roger and Peirce get quite angry like Roger at the Circus and to Orlov on the train, and Peirce to Elektra just before he kills her.
I do however enjoy Seans portrayal.
"Better make that two."
Connery-I think he was brilliant (to varying degrees) in each of his films except for YOLT (in which I still think he was pretty good) and NSNA (no comment.
1)GF
2)TB
3)FRWL
4)DN
5)DAF
6)YOLT
7)NSNA
Roger Moore- I though he was brilliant in LALD/TSWLM/FYEO, very good in MR/OP, okay in TMWTGG and disappointing in AVTAK. I would rank his performances thus;
1)TSWLM
2)LALD
3)FYEO
4)MR/OP*
5)TMWTGG
6)AVTAK
*If I had to pick one over the other it would be MR, but I think that both performances are terrific and their quality is about the same.
'Man With The Golden Gun' runs it very close for me- there's actually very little to recommend here, imo. The plot is fairly standard, though Scaramanga is a great villain and despite the fight at the end(another worst Bond moment) with him, Nick Nack is an intriguing character too. Apart from that, it's a washout, pretty much.
'A View To A Kill' I have a curious affection for. It's still one of the weakest films in the series, but it has more good bits than those others I mentioned. Patrick Macnee's scenes are great fun (though his demise in a car wash took his Avengers credentials a bit too far- a death you'd expect in that series but not here), Walken and Grace Jones are a great villainous duo. The stunt jump from the Eiffel Tower is amazing, too, and I like the car chase's reckless abandon. That said, Stacey Sutton is the least memorable Bond girl of all time imo, the car chase through the street is nicked from 'Diamonds Are Forever' and isn't even as funny as that is, and the 'California Girls' nonsense all but ruins the pre-credits scene. Still though, I prefer it to the other two weakest films.
To be honest, even the weaker Connery films don't hit the nadir of some of the Moore ones or the last two Brosnan ones, which I found cold and overblown. Most of the Connery ones are wondrous to behold. Watched 'From Russia With Love' on Sunday and forgot just how good that was- definitely just behind OHMSS for me, that one.
That said, I find it very hard to watch 'Thunderball' for its full running time. The amount of underwater sequences in this really do make it tedious- a shame, because I find most of the film to be really rather good. And 'Diamonds Are Forever' is my guilty pleasure- it's not particularly good Bond, but I find it a real hoot. I think it's because it was the first Bond film I saw I really like it. Hard to say it's one of the best, though, really.